A.M.F.A. support at the line stations?

[Buck]

As a welder. You will have "limited mutuality" within the AMFA, since you don't inhabit "the branch of the trade"..... :huh:

Yes and I could say the same thing for all but the A&P's. But that would be wrong.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Sweet. And maybe when they all vote AMFA, you can help these workers buy having them donate to buy another Charles Taylor Bust.

That's the ticket.

Glad you aren't trying to influence anyone on this site.

"Sweet."? Yes. it will be sweet when AMFA removes the twu at AA from representing my craft and class.

What's your point about buying a bust of Charles E. Taylor? Something wrong in wanting to promote my craft?

 

[Buck]

Glad you aren't trying to influence anyone on this site.

"Sweet."? Yes. it will be sweet when AMFA removes the twu at AA from representing my craft and class.

What's your point about buying a bust of Charles E. Taylor? Something wrong in wanting to promote my craft?

He is not part of your class and craft.

 

[Anomaly]

Another lie, now I know who is spreading that one. At least try to defend your industrial union with facts.

It is OK to be an induistrial unionist but at least defend with the facts instead of lies.

Whatever happened to that bee-hive you were going to kick over if your skill pay was not given parity with the license pay? Another HSS threat? Or was that just a lie to attempt to get things your way too? You are about to get 35-40% outsourced work and that has been your staple of TWU support, now what it is going to be your support line to hang your hat on?

I googled the subject of lies or difference of opinion and found an interesting article.

TWU informer; YOU SHOULD READ THIS

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/A-different-opinion-is-not-a-lie-1132569.php

We stated an opinion, but we also understand that all readers do not share it. This newspaper is a forum for the exchange of comments and we provide space for letters or essays (called op-eds) that raise objections to what we write.
This is how discourse is supposed to work. People don't all think alike, even when we judge the same evidence. And it's that difference that lubricates debate. Ideas slide around until they are accepted or rejected.

However, a few reject the very notion of discourse. They see a different opinion as a "lie." Some who think this way are liberal, while others are conservative. It's more about a rigid belief system than politics, philosophy or ideology.
Danish writer Bjorn Lomborg is someone whose words agitate the rigid critics. He writes radical stuff, challenges that fly past accepted fact.

"We are not running out of energy or natural resources. There will be more food per head of the world's population. Fewer and fewer people are starving," Lomborg writes in his 2001 book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist."

"Global warming, though its size and future projections are rather unrealistically pessimistic, is almost certainly taking place," he writes, "but the typical cure of early and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse than the original affliction and, moreover, its total impact will not pose a devastating problem for our future."

Fighting words in some environmental corners. But does he write lies?
Last year a group of scientists, acting as the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, reviewed Lomborg's work line by line, cite by cite and fact by fact.

Their conclusion: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty."

In the specialized language of science, the committee said, liar, liar, pants on fire.

I disagree with much of Lomborg's work. OK, most of it. But I like reading ideas that confront my views because it requires me to rethink the "why" of a conclusion. This, it would seem to me, ought to be as true for science as it is for ideas.
Last week another group of Danish scientists said as much.

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation cleared Lomborg of the dishonesty charge -- and suggested the very investigation of his work was sloppy. According to The Financial Times, the ministry ruled the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty's attack against Lomborg was "condescending and emotional" and the investigation did not let Lomborg defend his work before reaching its conclusion.

The scientific community can fight over the facts of any published work. It can even argue about whether or not Lomborg is a crank. But what's important is the principle that dissent makes us think better.

We need those cranks out there who make us uncomfortable. Ideas, even silly ones, foster other ideas.
I don't share Lomborg's conclusions. But this I know: He's not a liar.

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/A-different-opinion-is-not-a-lie-1132569.php#ixzz1zJV3691P[/background]​

 

[Anomaly]

I googled the subject of lies or difference of opinion and found an interesting article.

TWU informer; YOU SHOULD READ THIS

http://www.seattlepi...lie-1132569.php

We stated an opinion, but we also understand that all readers do not share it. This newspaper is a forum for the exchange of comments and we provide space for letters or essays (called op-eds) that raise objections to what we write.
This is how discourse is supposed to work. People don't all think alike, even when we judge the same evidence. And it's that difference that lubricates debate. Ideas slide around until they are accepted or rejected.

However, a few reject the very notion of discourse. They see a different opinion as a "lie." Some who think this way are liberal, while others are conservative. It's more about a rigid belief system than politics, philosophy or ideology.
Danish writer Bjorn Lomborg is someone whose words agitate the rigid critics. He writes radical stuff, challenges that fly past accepted fact.

"We are not running out of energy or natural resources. There will be more food per head of the world's population. Fewer and fewer people are starving," Lomborg writes in his 2001 book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist."

"Global warming, though its size and future projections are rather unrealistically pessimistic, is almost certainly taking place," he writes, "but the typical cure of early and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse than the original affliction and, moreover, its total impact will not pose a devastating problem for our future."

Fighting words in some environmental corners. But does he write lies?
Last year a group of scientists, acting as the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, reviewed Lomborg's work line by line, cite by cite and fact by fact.

Their conclusion: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty."

In the specialized language of science, the committee said, liar, liar, pants on fire.

I disagree with much of Lomborg's work. OK, most of it. But I like reading ideas that confront my views because it requires me to rethink the "why" of a conclusion. This, it would seem to me, ought to be as true for science as it is for ideas.
Last week another group of Danish scientists said as much.

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation cleared Lomborg of the dishonesty charge -- and suggested the very investigation of his work was sloppy. According to The Financial Times, the ministry ruled the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty's attack against Lomborg was "condescending and emotional" and the investigation did not let Lomborg defend his work before reaching its conclusion.

The scientific community can fight over the facts of any published work. It can even argue about whether or not Lomborg is a crank. But what's important is the principle that dissent makes us think better.

We need those cranks out there who make us uncomfortable. Ideas, even silly ones, foster other ideas.
I don't share Lomborg's conclusions. But this I know: He's not a liar.

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Read more: http://www.seattlepi...p#ixzz1zJV3691P[/background]​

TWU informer, each time you cry "liar liar" because you do not agree with a persons view, I think I will repeat this post. We all have rights and reasons for our opinions.

 

[Vortilon]

TWU informer, each time you cry "liar liar" because you do not agree with a persons view, I think I will repeat this post. We all have rights and reasons for our opinions.

The human horse fly is back. Posting ramdom quotes from a newspaper. Do you really think anybody cares what you have to post? You are a TROLL. Don't you have some bags to toss?

 

[Anomaly]

Glad you aren't trying to influence anyone on this site.

"Sweet."? Yes. it will be sweet when AMFA removes the twu at AA from representing my craft and class.

What's your point about buying a bust of Charles E. Taylor? Something wrong in wanting to promote my craft?

About Charles Taylor.

http://www.faa.gov/a...dia/CT Hist.pdf

http://www.nytimes.c...t-brothers.html

I just do not see how Charles Taylor supports your idea of Craft and Class? He was after all more related to those who are employed by Pratt and Whitney, Roles Royce, or GE. Maybe even Boeing or Airbus, but airline mechanics? Methinks not.

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate his contribution to our industry, and your commitment to that is nothing less than admirable, but I wonder if he would even be considered as part of our class and craft in today's standards?

To promote our class and craft of Airline Mechanics, why not present JD Smith? He was the FIRST Mechanic on the very first commercial airline, the St. Petersburg-Tampa Air Line.

http://www.earlyavia...om/ejannto2.htm

http://lrs.ed.uiuc.e...g3/winged-1.htm

http://avisupser.dgr...sa/usahome.html

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The Corporations killed AMFA at these properties, not the other Unions. You are drinking too much Scott Walker cool aid. Airlines and corporations and lawmakers and the general public are attacking ALLLLLL UNIONS.

AMFA was to weak to stand up against them.

THEY STILL ARE.

From Wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Popularity
Public approval of unions climbed during the 1980s much as it did in other industrialized nations,[sup] [/sup]but declined to below 50% for the first time in 2009 during the Great Recession. It's not clear if this is a long term trend or a function of a high unemployment rate with historically correlates with lower public approval of labor unions.[sup] [/sup]One explanation for loss of public support is simply the lack of union power or critical mass. No longer do a sizable percentage of American workers belonged to unions, or have family members who do. Unions no longer carry the “threat effect”. The power of unions to raise wages of non-union shops by virtue of the threat of unions to organize those shops.

Also, from the Daily Beast,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/23/wisconsin-union-fight-15-states-ready-to-follow-suit.html
16 States Going to War on Unions
Feb 23, 2011 6:52 PM EST

With Wisconsin locked in a union battle, The Daily Beast looks at the 15 states that could blow up next and crunches the numbers to find whether they're really on shaky financial footing—or playing politics.

AMFA had to fight Hoffa flying on scab maintained aircraft...TWU sponsored scab job fairs, and IAM scabs performing struck work. And here you come promoting more of the same. Shame on you and your ilk.

Are you one of the continental scabs leftover from Larenzo days?

 

[Anomaly]

The human horse fly is back. Posting ramdom quotes from a newspaper. Do you really think anybody cares what you have to post? You are a TROLL. Don't you have some bags to toss?

And yet you continue to read my posts, and respond. Bless you sir....

 

[Anomaly]

AMFA had to fight Hoffa flying on scab maintained aircraft...TWU sponsored scab job fairs, and IAM scabs performing struck work. And here you come promoting more of the same. Shame on you and your ilk.

You forget the hundreds of AMFA members who crossed their own lines. Or the AMFA leaders themselves who refused to allow the members a look at the final proposal. These leaders also insisted that the other Unions on property at NWA give up more than AMFA because they incorrectly assumed it was the mechanics that held ultimate power at the airline. AMFA boasted it could shut the airline down all by itself.

Finally, what about the flying public? NWA maybe skipped a beat, but did they ever slow down??

I am by no means sponsoring or glorifying SCABS. But to blame other Unions for the failure of AMFA at NWA is nothing more than another excuse and attempt to deflect the truth.

AMFA was to blame for the failure.

They failed at planning, they failed at informing, and they failed at executing this strike. Now even almost ten years later, they fail to admit the truth and learn from their mistakes.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I now know that you would surely be one of the first to cross an AMFA picket line.

You did not answer the question. Are you a Continental scab?

 

[Anomaly]

I now know that you would surely be one of the first to cross an AMFA picket line.

You did not answer the question. Are you a Continental scab?

No. I have never worked for Continental. I began my career at UAL and have never been on strike. UAL's last strike was a few years before I started. I have also stated numerous times that I have never crossed and active and known picket line. Just in case you go there, I have never even been on a NWA aircraft. I have never had a reason to.

How about you? When was the last time you scabbed, or crossed a line?

 

[Anomaly]

I now know that you would surely be one of the first to cross an AMFA picket line.

You did not answer the question. Are you a Continental scab?

Just curious, did you get side tracked from the porn sites to end up here? LOL
Glenn Quagmire - Family Guy Wiki

familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Glenn_Quagmire
Glenn Quagmire (born Glenn Quagglechek) is the sex-crazed, perverted neighbor of the Griffins....

 

[enough already]

And yet you continue to read my posts, and respond. Bless you sir....

Not anymore... 🙂

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Anomaly. View it anyway?

 

[Anomaly]

About Charles Taylor.

http://www.faa.gov/a...dia/CT Hist.pdf

http://www.nytimes.c...t-brothers.html

I just do not see how Charles Taylor supports your idea of Craft and Class? He was after all more related to those who are employed by Pratt and Whitney, Roles Royce, or GE. Maybe even Boeing or Airbus, but airline mechanics? Methinks not.

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate his contribution to our industry, and your commitment to that is nothing less than admirable, but I wonder if he would even be considered as part of our class and craft in today's standards?

To promote our class and craft of Airline Mechanics, why not present JD Smith? He was the FIRST Mechanic on the very first commercial airline, the St. Petersburg-Tampa Air Line.

http://www.earlyavia...om/ejannto2.htm

http://lrs.ed.uiuc.e...g3/winged-1.htm

http://avisupser.dgr...sa/usahome.html

Ken ??? No answer?